[linux-lvm] LVM limits?

Jordi Prats jprats at cesca.es
Tue Jan 29 00:16:20 UTC 2008

Agree. But, at least in my case, I've been studying better alternatives
(this means testing) but I've been required to grow the file system
because of our needs.

So, It's not the best solution, but until I can move to a better one
(this probably means buy more hardware) this is my best option to
provide space.

JFS, XFS and other file systems seems ok, but it wouldn't be a better
solution something like Lustre, Ceph or GlusterFS? They seems to provide
better scalability been also POSIX-compliant. What do you think?

Any inputs will be welcome :)


Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>> It took less then 90 minutes.
>> Ehud.
> 90 Minutes, how "enterprisable" is that? Just cause you can, doesn't mean you should: What if that server tanked during working hours at the corp? You would have to sit and wait for it to come back up. Worse than that are the rebuild times for degraded arrays. Try to rebuild a **huge** array on **huge** discs during production with lots of IO and hope you don't lose another disc. There are practical alternatives with thoughtful management to circumvent the need for and 8EB or larger array, but YMMV :)
> jlc
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/

More information about the linux-lvm mailing list